The United Altered States

Albert Scardino points out that the US Presidential election was extremely close and that the maps shown on the TV networks didn't really show that. I found, however, more intriguing the fact that many districts' boundaries were simply redrawn so as to fix the result. The Democrats had done this during their time, the Republicans simply did it more. Some districts' boundaries were like a long strip with residents caught up in the middle. This came from a very interesting programme but, as always, the most interesting things are at strange times on Radio 4 and there's no way of finding a link!
Best link, though, is this! Really nice :)

Assemblies or bureaucracies?

From John O'Farrell of the Guardian:

"

It was a very tense night. All over America millions of viewers stayed up late waiting to find out the result of that referendum on a regional assembly for the north-east of England. In bars in the midwest, tattooed truckers and Vietnam vets anxiously bit their lips as CNN reported that exit polls from Chester-le-Street made the referendum too close to call.
"Jeez, if the Welsh and Scotch can have assemblies, why not the Geordies?"
"Because it's an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy you schmuck; Bishop Auckland and Hartlepool already have local councils ..."

I'm not surprised by the result of the referendum on a possible Assembly for the North-East, especially considering the almost non-existing powers proposed for it. People who turned the assembly down did it, in many cases, on the ground that it would have had no powers. Legislative and executive powers are essential to implement a democratic mandate and be the legitimate representative of the region. Why on earth do Labour always manage a fudge? Their indecisions, or better, divisions give us only half-baked solutions.

Fear & Prejudice

It seems to me that Bush won the election on a campaign of fear and prejudice. The war in Iraq clearly obtained only a destabilised country where terrorists can get easily hold of weapons, the death of something like 100,000 Iraqis and a country torn apart by war. Nevertheless, this was portrayed as being tough on terrorism which was made priority number one by President Bush following the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Had they been serious about terrorism they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place (but I've already made comments on this many times).
Bush & his team used people's fears to attack Kerry. Bush derived his following from 9/11. The attacks were a profound shock that will take time to heal. Bush, notwithstanding his total incompetence, profited tremendously from the fear the attacks generated. He gave Americans a twisted and simplistic picture of the world where an evil enemy was ready to attack them at any time. Mind you, Blair tried to do the same, it just looked ridiculous. Didn't we laugh when tanks were surrounding Heathrow waiting for a terrorist who turned up at Gatwick? (understandable mistake, they always lose your luggage at Heathrow).
I assume Americans want the President to finish the job, to make them feel safe again. This will never happen because Bush doesn't want them to feel safe. As long as people feel in need of protection, the administration will have almost unrestrained power over them.
Another issue might have played a part: gay marriage.
At the same time of the elections some states (including Ohio!) decided on whether to ban gay marriages by amending the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This Republican campaign came in the wake of 4,000 gay marriages being celebrated in San Francisco this year in a month period. California's Supreme Court in August annulled the marriages boosting the campaign. (see article).
Did this do the trick? It certainly did for Ohio that even backed an amendment against civil unions for gay couples.
So 'religion' played a huge role in these elections. Or better, a certain type of religion, the religion of prejudice, suspicion and intolerance.